Australian Police Given Power to Use Spyware

Federal and state police now have the power to use computer spyware to gather evidence in a broad range of investigations after legal changes last week. The Surveillance Devices Act allows police to obtain a warrant to use software surveillance technologies, including systems that track and log keystrokes on a computer keyboard. The law applies to the Australian Federal Police and to state police investigating Commonwealth offences. Read More (“smhguy/pass” to access)

About The Author

51 Comments

2004-12-14 4:47 pm

Businesses have spent the last ten years priming us for spyware on our computers, and now the government wants to get into the act. Somehow this does not surprise me.

And there really is no way to protect our computers. The stupid things are too complex to examine throughly, even though most of us don’t use most of the features. Many (most?) online resources will break if you take the smallest measures to protect your machine, so the only way to protect yourself is by isolating yourself from society.

Well, see you in 2084 … when we do have cameras and remotely controlled terminals in our bedrooms.

2004-12-14 4:49 pm

I don’t really care. If this helps stopping criminals then I’m all for it. I got nothing to hide.

2004-12-14 4:59 pm

I believe that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies in the US have been able to use keystroke loggers (with a court order) for years. This is basically the same as tapping a telephone or bugging a room, which police can also do with a court order. For me, what’s interesting about this is that computers have become so central to our lives that the ability to monitor them would now be considered an absolutely essential part of any criminal investigation.

2004-12-14 5:02 pm

I don’t really care. If this helps stopping criminals then I’m all for it. I got nothing to hide.

This kind of thinking is what causes us to lose freedom. I’ve got nothing to hide, but why should they be allowed to look inside?

2004-12-14 5:16 pm

There is a huge difference between monitoring somebody’s internet connection, which is similar to wiretapping, and logging keystrokes. Keystroke loggers are able to monitor both online and offline useage. Just as monitoring online use is similar to wiretapping, monitoring offline use is analagous to bugging somebody’s home. People should have a reasonable expectation for privacy in their home. (They should have a reasonable expectation for communicating privately by mail, phone, and email too, but that is a different point.)

Second, I don’t buy this “I have nothing to hide” argument. We can take a look at the issue from the point of accountability. Many agencies expect our lives to be an open book, that is they expect us to be infinitely accountable for our actions (whether they are right or wrong). Yet you will notice that many of these agencies are a closed book (ie. they are very nervous about people monitoring them), because they don’t want to be held accountable for anything. Sure they will hide behind excuses like “security” and “privacy”, but when somebody has the right to monitor you without you being able to hold them accountable for their actions, you have no security and you most certainly have no privacy.

2004-12-14 5:23 pm

I don’t really care.

Now you don’t, but what if something changes and you do start to care?

If this helps stopping criminals then I’m all for it.

It may stop nickel and dime criminals, but rest assured that the multi-billion dollar organized crime units will be three steps ahead of “law enforcement”.

I got nothing to hide.

Right now, that might be true. But what if society, for some ill conceived reasons, deem blue-eyed psychology students using BeOS as higly unwanted and orders them to be killed? (Before you say absurd… What about genocide?)

Society must be protected, but not against all costs. Privacy is a right and rights need to be protected.

How much control is deemed acceptable before innocent people start to feel “imprisoned in a house of glass”?

2004-12-14 5:46 pm

What it amounts to is major govts using their legal monopoly to infiltrate and steal IP from those individuals not wary enough to keep theirs “hidden”. Yes, if you amount to anything in the world of technology or literature, you’ll want to keep your stuff well hidden and offline lest it wind up in the hands of IBM/MS by way of the Australian or some other major govt (think Singapore).

2004-12-14 6:06 pm

If you have a credit card number than you have something to hide, even if you never do anything wrong.

2004-12-14 6:18 pm

You beat me to the Ben Franklin quote…it happens to be one of my all-time favorites

It always makes me a bit nervous when governments begin giving themselves extended rights to invade the privacy of citizens and monitor their activity; that is one of the indicators of the possible formation of a police state.

2004-12-14 6:32 pm

… that US Law enforcement will be attempted to do the same thing under the aegis of the PATRIOT act?

You bet your ass I will be reading the technical papers on my home OS choice very, *very* carefully from here on out in addition to keeping my eyes and ears peeled on various technical fora to see if any “backdoor keylogger” installs are included by default on future distros.

2004-12-14 6:34 pm

> The UK has cameras tracking your every move in large cities.

Not quite every; and in many countries, cameras are very common (ie, in shops.) The UK is a bit worse in this regards than most.

> Canada, France, Germany, and other european countries don’t have freedom of speech that we enjoy in the US (all in the name of curbing “hate speech” – whatever that is).

The USA has restrictions on speech too – for instance, libel, speech likely to lead to immediate violence/”incitement”, shouting fire in a crowded theater…

Germany has stronger restrictions, especially with regards to nazi-related materials. Canada censors more than the USA; but it’s not a black and white “these countries censor, and only in the USA do we have freedom of speech!”

The USA does censor; other western countries censor similar amounts, or slightly more. It’s all vanishingly small compared to censorship in countries like China; you can argue that it’s too much, but it’s on the same order of magnitude between the countries you name – including the USA.

For another example of American censorship, the book “Applied Cryptography” has a lot of cryptographic source code in it, hard copy. This had to be scanned and ocr’d in other countries – because American law prevented the -electronic- export of the same code.

> Once some islamo-wackos blow themselves up in a mall, who knows what Patriot Act II, III, and IV will impose on us in the states.

Unfortunately, every country gives up various amounts of liberties which at best boarders on the edges of essential.

> Thom has the typical european statist attitude.

Now, really. A typical statist/authoritarian/apolitical attitude, yes. There is nothing particularily European about it.

I’ve lived in the USA, and I’ve lived in Europe. That attitude occurs in both.

2004-12-14 6:43 pm

I grew up in a small town in the back 40 of nowhere.

Can we say: fiefdoms, pea-hens, gossip, and good-ole-boy network?

All it takes is a corrupt law enforcement offical with an axe to grind (and gee, that NEVER happens), and, since there’s no need for a warrant … the gossip and blacklisting networks can be put to use.

“I hear that so and so surfs for this kind of porn …”

Pre-internet days, I know people in my hometown who had their private medical details become the hottest dish in town thanks to … somebody in the hospital with access to their medical charts. (And it’s not like that’s exactly a short list of people.)

—

Or, it could just take a corrupt person with access to honest law enforcement’s computer to wreak havok. And I’m not just talking about sending the wheels of gossip churning — I’m talking about breaking in and swiping CC numbers, bank tranactions, ect.

2004-12-14 7:26 pm

Privacy is a right and rights need to be protected.

Well its a right the State grants the citizens who have elected them to make these decisions. At least Australia is a democracy.

Its pretty hard if not impossible to come up with some kind of secular basis establishing, ‘the right to privacy’. That being the case these rights can come and go based on the whim of the people or the government at least.

I suppose if the Australian public don’t like it they will force the government to change the law or vote it out.

Personally I hate the way the word ‘rights’ is used today. It leads to people having a sense of entitlement. I would prefer regular citizens to think of rights as ‘privileges’ and the government to think of rights as ‘duties’ given to them by the people to uphold.

2004-12-14 7:50 pm

> Its pretty hard if not impossible to come up with some kind of secular basis establishing, ‘the right to privacy’. That being the case these rights can come and go based on the whim of the people or the government at least.

> I suppose if the Australian public don’t like it they will force the government to change the law or vote it out.

These kinds of laws very rarely get overturned by politicians. They are occasionally overturned by courts. It’s much quicker and easier to pass a law than to revoke it.

> Personally I hate the way the word ‘rights’ is used today. It leads to people having a sense of entitlement. I would prefer regular citizens to think of rights as ‘privileges’ and the government to think of rights as ‘duties’ given to them by the people to uphold.

I think that people really ought to be able to have a sense of entitlement about some things. Is it a “privledge” to not be a slave? Privacy is not -quite- as fundamental; but many of us cherish privacy greatly, and there have been many examples of the nonsense and worse which propagate when a government feels free to invade it.

There is a point where people abuse the word “rights.” I think that considering privacy a right is well within the meaning the word should have.

2004-12-14 7:55 pm

Personally I hate the way the word ‘rights’ is used today. It leads to people having a sense of entitlement.

Actually, constitution-type laws are attempts to codify what is generally acknowledged as basic undeniable human rights. You _are_ entitled to them, whether the majority of your fellow citizens likes it or not.

2004-12-14 8:16 pm

Nothing to hide, eh?

I’d be very suprised if you’re not either ignorant or lying…(no offense meant).

So you live a perfect life, you’re a paragon of virtue and civic responsibility?

Do you ever record free-to-air television (illegal) Do you ever borrow software from your friends? (illegal) Do you ever use mp3s? (illegal, depending on where you are – as a total of all mp3s, very few are totally ‘legitimate’ – plus the mp3 codec licensing)

*All* of the software you have in your house is legitimate, I assume? If asked by police, you would be able to produce the EULAs and Proof of Authenticity, I assume. (and saying “it’s a friends” is probably not good enough)

Your power cords/power tools are certified by a licensed electrician every 6 months? (illegal if not – but most people don’t – bloody ripoff)

You have never made *any* modification to your phone line/mains without calling an Austel Licensed (I’m downunder) or licensed electrician? (illegal if not)

Your plumbing is done by a licensed plumber, whom you ask to produce his documentation and license each time?

Seriously mate, I very much doubt you have nothing to hide – they’ll find something – and saying, “everyone does it” isn’t exactly going to hold up in court – if they want to get *you* they’ll get you for something.

He’s intimidated witnesses, tapped phone lines, stolen police records, attempted to kidnap people using police equipment/help, beaten up and stolen from people etc.

Then there was that Melbourne underworld scandal a few months back – apparently, people under witness protection were being shot/killed with inside help by police.

Not very reassuring, that these are the people committed to protecting us – then we give them these rights.

What’s to stop another Laycock say, getting you’re credit card number, or just obtaining private information and blackmailing you (anybody who’s been following the court case will know he’s *definitely* more than capable of doing that – kidnap, assault, robbery, etc, he’s done them all – and he’s the son of a assistant commisioner).

Bye,

Victor

2004-12-14 9:42 pm

…….in obtianing copies of this spyware, including scripts, that these snoopers are using. And for all platforms too even if all you can retreve is only a file or two.

And from all countries too…. will be interesting to see who is inovating and who isn’t.

This is another reason to use Firewalls that can block in both directions and programs that catch new installs.

2004-12-14 10:04 pm

You guys have no idea but in the happy land of OZ we have very established corruption within our police forces. Every state has had an attempt to clean house but it will never be perfect. Giving authorities such powers without public scrutiny in our society is a disaster waiting to happen.

We also have no bill of rights to protect us from power abuse and in our wonderful Democracy the system is manipulated to allow only 1 of 2 political choices for the populace. Both of which are very much the same hence the dissolusionment of the general populace. I’m all for the tracking of criminal elements of society and this might take down some of the most insidious elements of cyber crime (child exploitation) but as for established crime groups, they will remain one step ahead and with no accountability we as a society are poorer for it.

2004-12-14 10:09 pm

The USA has restrictions on speech too – for instance, libel, speech likely to lead to immediate violence/”incitement”, shouting fire in a crowded theater…

Obviously you can’t stand on the sidewalk at 3 in the morning and scream at the top of your lungs, so yeah there are restrictions on free speech. In france, germany, and probably Canada too you can be thrown in prison for denying the holocaust in a public place. That’s FUBAR. These countries don’t have constitutional rights like the US does.

2004-12-14 10:27 pm

> Obviously you can’t stand on the sidewalk at 3 in the morning and scream at the top of your lungs, so yeah there are restrictions on free speech.

Which was my point. It’s a matter of degree.

> In france, germany, and probably Canada too you can be thrown in prison for denying the holocaust in a public place. That’s FUBAR. These countries don’t have constitutional rights like the US does.

No, not in Canada. Zundel, a well known holocaust denier, did spend a week in jail, after being sentanced for “false news” – but the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the law as… unconstitutional.

2004-12-14 11:44 pm

I happen to agree with your principles but your attitude pisses me right the fuck off. Please give up borderline racist statements such as ‘islamo-wackos’ and nationalist idiocy like ‘typical European statist attitude’. (The other place I saw that Ben Franklin quote recently was in the signature of someone from Europe, by the way). There is a healthy range of political debate both in Europe and in America and this is the way it should be. Freedom of speech is by no means unthreatened in America; you may like to visit the Comic Book Legal Defence Fund’s website at http://www.cbldf.org/ – you’d be surprised at some of the stealth attacks that are made on free speech in this area. Of course, no one cares, because comics are just rubbish for kids, right?

2004-12-14 11:56 pm

“And yes, I’ve been to Frankfurt, Hamburg, and London. France and Germany are horrible regarding free speech. Some leftist in the UK just introduced an anti-free speech law, but it was quickly shot down by the Torries.”

That would be ‘Tories’, as in the Conservative party. And I’d be amazed if they could ‘shoot down’ a proposed law in the UK, given that the Labour party holds a comfortable majority in Parliament and can therefore pass any law it wishes (the UK political system tends to allow the ruling party to pass any measure it introduces; the sitting Labour government has not lost a Commons vote in the seven years it’s been in power. It’s a very unusual event in UK politics.) The Labour party is not, in practice, particularly ‘leftist’ – it gained power in 1997 following a sustained campaign by the ‘New Labour’ faction to move the party towards the centre, and during its time in power has progressed steadily rightwards. The measure to which you refer – a proposed law creating the new offence of ‘incitement to religious hatred’, in line with the existing offence of ‘incitement to racial hatred’ – is a government measure, it was not proposed by ‘some leftist’, and opposition to it has been marshalled by a cross-party force of those with more libertarian instincts than the sitting government. Those in opposition to it include members of all three major political parties, along with prominent public figures like Rowan Atkinson (best known to UK audiences as Blackadder, and to US audiences as Mr. Bean).

Please do try and enlighten yourself about the political systems of nations you’re so free to criticise, in future.

2004-12-14 11:58 pm

I think the original post was about some other country wasn’t it?

Anyway, it seems to me to be a ongoing motif. The government takes away your right to protect yourself then they start making laws. Does it stop at security or end in horror like Nazi Germany or maybe even other countries today? I might be able to name a few non-European non-North American countries that are REALLY strict and no one seems to care.

Well, hopefully they have honest jury’s that can decide what is fair.

2004-12-15 12:18 am

well I’d say this thread has officially spun out of control at this point. good job people.

2004-12-15 12:31 am

Go ahead and mod down anyone with anything to say on international freedom of speech issues. Thats real clever.

Yes, a lot opions are conflicting and some peoples opinions are offending to others. But thats what freedom of speech is all about.

You opened the can of worms posting a story about “freedoms” to begin with. I realize the story pertained only to Aus law enforcement but WTF did you expect people to start talking about? Don’t quote web board rules here, I’m talking about reality. Honest. Brutal. Uncensored.

If you were *really* just concerned with “posting guidlines” there would only be about six comments on this board right now.

You political/religious stance shows thru and thru by the comments that are left and those that were not.

2004-12-15 2:22 am

Of course the funny thing is that anybody in their right mind knows how these threads are going to turn out, so the osnews staff should not post the story or let the thread run wild.

2004-12-15 2:34 am

just because you are allowed to do something today and therefore have nothing to hide today does not mean this will also be the case tomorrow. i can still watch dvds on linux using a decss library, from 1st january 2005 onwards i will be called a criminal if i do that. i live in australia.

2004-12-15 3:03 am

“This site is so BIASED towards the Liberal

point of view it is not funny.”

Given we’re discussing Australian politics on an international forum, I think you need to be a little clearer about exactly which form of Liberalism you’re talking about – the international form or the entirely different Australian one.

Anyway, I don’t mind the Prime Minister watching what I do in my bedroom. I’ve always thought he was kinky anyway.

2004-12-15 4:21 am

What about the CJC and “the 7:30 report”. The 7:30 report brought down an entire corrupt government. You might say that the police can do this and this without impunity but there will always be someone watching and their judgment time will always come.

2004-12-15 5:02 am

Not all states have a CJC or equivalent do they?

2004-12-15 6:04 am

Basically I am saying that if the government is a secular government i.e. not favouring or holding to any particular worldview, then it is not really possible to have any inalienable right. In such a setup there are no absolutes to draw from. People basically believe in the idea that everyone has a right not to be a slave etc, but a secular government does not have any authority from which it can draw those conclusions. Individuals within government may believe in them.

Really though we are born with nothing and leave with nothing, anything in between is a luxury. Watch the Nature channel and you will see pure nature without any luxuries civilization affords humans.

2004-12-15 6:09 am

The only way to combat this is for EVERYONE to encrypt EVERYTHING! Get out there & promote 256-bit encryption.

When everything that the people do is opaque (especially

financial transactions), the governments of the world will

find them themselves with no incomes to tax (since they won’t know who has the money), & less power to police the populace.

Think about it.

2004-12-15 8:35 am

I’m going to be moving to Australia within the next six months, so this is of interest to me, to say the least. How exactly do they intend to install their spyware onto your computer? Someone else made the comment very early into this thread, and I agree with them 100%. This law is good for catching nickel and dime crooks, and maybe your occaisional big time crook that got careless, but otherwise, the really big time people that they’re after are not going to be stupid enough to allow themselves to be caught in this manner, so what this law will probably serve to do is to hurt everybody else.

To anybody saying, “But, but, but are you saying that ya’ll don’t want us ta ketch them tarrists??” I say, read up– you’re not going to catch terrorists or corporate theives with this law, you’re going to catch Geoff McMurphryninjason in his 20-mp3-a-day habit.

2004-12-15 9:45 am

In Denmark it is illegal by constitutional law to censor. This means we cannot and will not censor your speach, however, we may fine you for racist speech (which is being removed by a majority vote in the parliament as i type this). This means, an editor has no right what so ever, to “bleep” me on TV. This does not happen in Danish television, only on pre-“bleeped” TV from the states.

So, in Europe we dont necessarily have stupid censorship laws everywhere. In Denmark we are removing the two laws restricting absolute free speach: The blasfemy law, and the law about talking racistically about a minority.

Come back with your “in the states we have free speach” when you dont bleep words on TV anymore .

On another note; I do not want law enforcement to have extended rights in cyberspace that they cannot obtain in “real” life. Just because its easy to monitor digital expressions of real communication such as e-mail to snailmail and such, it shouldent mean law enforcement should have those rights. Like saving emails at ISPs for x days before deletion. Can you imagine the postal office scanning all the mail they deliver just to make sure, your not talking about contraband or terror?

Its stupid. <insert benjamin franklin quote>.

2004-12-15 9:49 am

I think the only danger is potential for abuse. But one must remember that this law only extends what police can already do with telephones. It requires a judge to agree to the monitoring. So actually you can use whatever encryption you want given enough time the police could decode anything. But again it is not random spyware installing, it needs to be sanctioned by a judge so there are protections in place.

So I think this law is far more likely to catch a terrorist than an mp3 trader.

2004-12-15 10:00 am

I don’t think that one should compare Denmark with the US. I think the US is a little more diverse(on all vectors) and a little larger.

Also seems that some as some one put it, your right to free speech ends when you yell “FIRE!” in a crowded cinema. That is a classic right of the majorities safety superseeding the right of the individual to free speech.

I agree with your comparison of scanning emails with mail, except that it is infeasible to scan regular mail but feasible to scan email. I realise that Russia censored mail in Stalin’s time, but I imagine the volume of mail was a little less then and it was probably a very small sample. I would not want my mail read though.

Lastly this law is about the police getting court approval to monitor specific individuals who the police have good reason to monitor/collect evidence.

2004-12-15 10:28 am

Well – a court order is all well and good. We trust our courts down we? But the courts are only ordered to do what the politicians vote into law. So basically, they can make a majority vote that all people buying bananas on tuesdays are “suspects” and they can be searched. The “but they got a court order” is not a valid argument, remember who writes the laws.

Besides, the politicians are my voice, they should work for me, and with me. Not against me. Also, remember, we have human rights, these cannot be violated for any reason what so ever. (“PATRIOT” Act, Guantanamo base, iraqi prisons..) – just because people do terrible things doesent mean they void their basic rights.

What scares me is how people will piss away all their rights, as long as they mention terrorists or pedophiles.

2004-12-15 11:23 am

I guess it’s simply a matter of personal preference. I really wouldn’t mind if the police would read my emails– first fo all, as someone already noted, they’ll only do that to people who are already the suspect of a crime. And since I ain’t, I got nothing to fear.

Secondly, even if they’d read my email, I still wouldn’t care much. Again, I have nothing to hide. Someone said “Yeah, but what if you suddenly get a government that wants to control everything?” (or something like that). That’s a rather curious question– a government like that will apply these new tactics anyway, whether they were deployed by the preceding government or not. That’s simply irrelevant.

Thirdly, the US have the ability to scan all the mails, phonecalls etc. in the world anyway. Do a google search on “Echelon” and you’ll know. It’s the NSA’s (National Security Agency) toy that taps phones, emails and the likes. It looks for keywords such as “bomb”, “terrorist” and such, for “security reasons”. So, you’re already being watched.

2004-12-15 11:53 am

I to, have nothing to hide. But i still protest it, as i dont see the benefits they gain for this loss in privacy.

They go after the small criminals, the smart terrorists and other criminals already know about encryption, SSH, etc. They are not dumb enough to use standard e-mail and the like for their communication. I encrypt everything that is important to my work – i dont send out anything work related to any of my costumers before i encrypt it – and all my LAN traffic is also encrypted, not because im paranoid, but because i just default to useing scp over ssh for my filesharing needs . I remember a case where a US company patended something with identical blueprints (incl. serial numbers) as a French company – supposedly with help from the US government (i doubt it) – but its still an example of critical dataleak. Can these spyware tools be abused by other than law enforcers, and where do we say stop?

Should we make spyware tools mandatory on all new PCs and the next windows update, where it flushes its cache every year, just so we can step in and sniff out keys and stuff needed in an investigation? With your reasoning, why not?

We shouldent – because we have FREEDOM under responcibility in democracies. The alternative is a policestate – people used to laugh about the Soviet union, but now we’re introducing their methods freely? Oh my.

2004-12-15 1:50 pm

One of the Australian intelligence agencies was using a keystroke logger to record the activities of a suspected terrorist linked to Al Qaeda. They had to reinstall it several times because a diligent techie at his workplace kept removing it from his PC.

2004-12-15 3:51 pm

I’m all for Law Enforcement agencies being able to find new ways to fight crime but being given so broad powers that they would normally not get with out a warrant in the real world is a concern for everyone globally. Like already mentioned by one poster not all agencies are pure and have been found in the past time and time again to have a few corrupt members in their organization. What happens if one of these so called corrupt law officials use this technology to steal corporate secrets, banking information or create false information about a legit citizen?

Then comes the real question of how effective would it be to use Spyware technology to combat crime? After all spyware technology is apparently only effective on Windows, not Linux or OSX. So at least for those of us that are legit citizens using non-Windows can have some peace of mind over those who are not. Maybe this is one reason why government agencies around the world are switching from Windows over to Linux due to possible concern of such technology being used against them. After all code that can be scrutinized such as open source software and not hidden like Microsoft software is less likely to be open to attack. Same for code such as Linux not being as easily susceptible to spyware and viruses is less likely to be so easily penetrated.

Like I said I’m all for Law Enforcement but not at the risk of losing rights such as those outlined in the Privacy Act and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Only time will tell if the Australian citizens will stand up and fight for protection of their rights before they lose all of them.

2004-12-15 4:09 pm

I’m of two opinions: either you have privacy, or you don’t. If you have privacy, the government shouldn’t have the right to circumvent those laws for any purpose. If we don’t have privacy, then all infomation about groups or individuals should be distributed freely (without restriction and without cost) so that everyone is playing on even grounds.

There are cases where people are being persecuted and cannot defend themself because the evidence (properly or improperly collected) is shrouded in a veil of secrecy. This leaves no room for accountability within intelligence, judiciary, police, etc..

And another thing: keystroke logging is NOT the same as phone tapping. If it were, the police would be able to listen to what is happening in a room via the phone lines, even though you were not using the phone. Ie. they would be monitoring something which is normally entirely in the private realm.

2004-12-15 5:49 pm

And another thing: keystroke logging is NOT the same as phone tapping. If it were, the police would be able to listen to what is happening in a room via the phone lines, even though you were not using the phone. Ie. they would be monitoring something which is normally entirely in the private realm.

I would venture to say that in most countries the police do have the ability to listen in on what’s happening in a room, put video cameras in there, etc. It’s called surveillance, and it’s routine, especially for agencies like the FBI. Of course, it all has to be under the supervision of the courts, and can only be done with a warrant issued by a judge. And the spyware also needs to be installed under court order. How do you think they install it? They break into your house, probably, and use the CD drive. They use a search warrant to enter your house, and search, and before they leave, they install spyware on your computer. I really don’t see this as being any different than installing bugs in a suspect’s house, taps on the phone, GPS locators on their car, etc.

I think we can get up in arms about potential abuses of power by law enforcement, because it’s a genuine problem. But this spyware issue is really only one facet of an entire array of options that law enforcement typically has. We just have to have faith in the judicial system’s ability to oversee it, and be willing to throw out evidence that’s gathered improperly.

2004-12-15 7:36 pm

“I think the only danger is potential for abuse. But one must remember that this law only extends what police can already do with telephones. It requires a judge to agree to the monitoring. So actually you can use whatever encryption you want given enough time the police could decode anything.”

Huh?

well, if the NSA and all the military branches gave them access to all the supercomputing power they have lying around, they could maybe break 256-bit encryption. In several years. That’s not enough protection for you? Go quantum.

2004-12-15 7:38 pm

“I guess it’s simply a matter of personal preference. I really wouldn’t mind if the police would read my emails– first fo all, as someone already noted, they’ll only do that to people who are already the suspect of a crime. And since I ain’t, I got nothing to fear.”

As has previously been noted – and as many law-abiding citizens who’ve gone on, fr’instance, peace marches or anti-nuclear protests have discovered – it’s very, very, very hard not to break any laws at all. As Terry Pratchett once remarked, if you stay home all day with the doors locked and don’t move, they can probably do you for loitering.

2004-12-15 7:41 pm

“I would venture to say that in most countries the police do have the ability to listen in on what’s happening in a room, put video cameras in there, etc. It’s called surveillance, and it’s routine, especially for agencies like the FBI. Of course, it all has to be under the supervision of the courts, and can only be done with a warrant issued by a judge.”

Er, no, you’re wrong. They don’t. AFAIK, neither the U.S. nor Australia nor most European countries (I don’t know the law in all of them) grants the police the right to install audio or video monitoring equipment in private residences, with or without a court order. They can use such equipment in public places, they can bug *means of communication* like the telephone, and they can attempt to spy on what’s going on from outside, with cameras in co-operative neightbours houses or whatever. But they can’t just stick a video camera in your house, with or without a court order.

2004-12-15 9:05 pm

For those people who’s solution to protecting their privacy was to encrypt everything, the following words I think is somewhat relevent:

“On 27 September 2001, the Cybercrime Act, No. 161, 2001, was passed. Item 12 of the law inserts a section 3LA in the Crimes Act 1914, that requires release of encryption keys or decryption of encrypted data, upon a magistrate’s order. The order may be granted if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting evidential material is held in or accessible from a computer, and the specified person is a suspect or (an employee of) the owner or lessee of the computer, who has relevant knowledge of the encryption. Failure to comply with the order is punishable with up to six months’ imprisonment. The same power is granted in section 201A of the Customs Act 1901.”

I dislike these silly laws, they’ll catch slow not very bright people, but for most of the people on this board, I imagine setting up a encrypted / is not beyond them. Or if one was lazy a cdrw with the hashes of files that would have to be tampered with in order to install a keylogger (/bin,/boot/,sbin/..pretty much everywhere except perhaps /tmp and /var I imagine)

Now no ones mentioned, and I havent RTFA, but does this include hardware keyloggers? Because thats what I would fear more.

*looks idlely at his keyboards usb2ps2 connector, wondering if its still the same one that came with the computer*

2004-12-15 10:09 pm

As has previously been noted – and as many law-abiding citizens who’ve gone on, fr’instance, peace marches or anti-nuclear protests have discovered – it’s very, very, very hard not to break any laws at all. As Terry Pratchett once remarked, if you stay home all day with the doors locked and don’t move, they can probably do you for loitering.

Yes, but also today justice won’t hold you for everything you do wrong. That isn’t suddenly going to change when they start using spyware.

Er, no, you’re wrong. They don’t. AFAIK, neither the U.S. nor Australia nor most European countries (I don’t know the law in all of them) grants the police the right to install audio or video monitoring equipment in private residences, with or without a court order.

Err, with a court order it’s perfectly legal by Dutch laws. Thank god they can do that.

2004-12-15 10:50 pm

Holy cow. That’s a bad law. Private property should be sacrosanct under any decent legal system.

2004-12-16 4:40 am

These issues are nothing new, rent/buy & view “The Anderson Tapes”

starring Sean Connery. Rent/buy & view “The Prisoner” episode:

“The Hammer & the Anvil”. A lot of creepy things live under rocks & cannot stand the light of day. Government paranoia